2008 Regional Bus Survey Preliminary Results Presentation to the Access for All Advisory Committee Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services Director April.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
WMATA’s SmarTrip Card and
Advertisements

Office of Marketing SmartBenefits ® Sales Team Dates and processes in this presentation are subject to change. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
Mass Transit OSullivan Chapter 11. Outline of the Chapter Analyze some empirical facts about public transit in the United States Analyze the commuters.
Minorities and Retirement Security (MRS) Minorities and Retirement Security (MRS) Dr. Hervani (PI) Saeid Delnavaz (RA) Third Seminar April 25, 2014 Chicago.
On-board Survey of Bus and Light Rail Customers May 8, 2006 Transit Marketing, LLC CJI Research Corporation.
SR 50/UCF Connector Alternatives Analysis Orange County Board of County Commissioners January 13, 2015.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB Planning Applications Conference presented by Elizabeth Sall Maren Outwater Cambridge Systematics,
GREATER NEW YORK A GREENER Travel Demand Modeling for analysis of Congestion Mitigation policies October 24, 2007.
The Current State and Future of the Regional Multi-Modal Travel Demand Forecasting Model.
Status of the SEMCOG E6 Travel Model SEMCOG TMIP Peer Review Panel Meeting December 12, 2011 presented by Liyang Feng, SEMCOG Thomas Rossi, Cambridge Systematics.
Think. Learn. Succeed. Getting College Students on Board George Mason University Office of Parking & Transportation VTA 2008 Annual Conference May 20,
A service of Maryland Health Benefit Exchange Health Care. Women of Color Get It September 8, 2012.
1 Using Transit Market Analysis Tools to Evaluate Transit Service Improvements for a Regional Transportation Plan TRB Transportation Applications May 20,
Business Logistics 420 Public Transportation Lectures 8: The Performance and Condition of Transit in the United States.
Incorporating utility-based bike- to-transit paths in a tour-based model for Portland, Oregon 6 May 2013 Prepared for: TRB Planning Applications Conference.
Transportation Operations/Mobility in the Baltimore Region Customer Satisfaction Survey AMPO Operations Work Group September 28-29, 2006 Las Vegas.
Client Name Here - In Title Master Slide 2007/2008 Household Travel Survey Changes in Daily Travel Patterns 1994 to 2007/2008 Robert E. Griffiths Technical.
The Development of a Direct Demand Non-Home Based Model for Urban Rail Travel Rhett Fussell, PE –PB Americas Bill Davidson-PB Americas Joel Freedman-PB.
Higher Gasoline Taxes: Elitist or Equitable? A Better City Panel on State Infrastructure Barry Bluestone Stephanie Pollack March 17, 2009.
1 Regional Priority Bus Projects List Steve Yaffe, Arlington County December 17, 2008 TPB Regional Bus Subcommittee Presented to the Transportation Planning.
1 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Customer Satisfaction Measurement FY 2006 Q3 Comparison April 28, 2006.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics U.S. Department of Transportation Overall Travel Patterns of Older Americans Jeffery L. Memmott
Planning & Implementing Transportation Alternatives for Energy Efficiency and the Future Is Now Foundation October 4, 2011 Debbie Griner, Environmental.
Performance Analysis Presentation to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (NCR-TPB) November 28, 2012 Adopted: July 18, 2012 Item.
Commuting to Work in the Metropolitan Washington Region Some Preliminary Results from the 2000 Census Robert E. Griffiths Cooperative Forecasting and Data.
: Research Question: Would ridership needs in the area of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project be better Served by the implementation of a Bus Rapid.
Business Logistics 420 Public Transportation Lecture 18: Demand Forecasting.
On-Board Transit Survey Presentation to TCC Dec. 13, 2002 Heather Alhadeff, AICP
Prepared by: DECEMBER 2008 Metro Transit Light- Rail and Bus Rider Survey FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PERISCOPE.
Wigan Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 1001 – GMATS Wigan Key Centre report Whereas report.
East Portland In Motion covers all of Portland east of 82 nd Avenue. This represents 28% of the city’s population and 23% of its land area. East Portland.
Tameside Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 999 – GMATS Tameside Key Centre report Whereas report.
Montgomery County Rapid Transit System (RTS) Service Planning and System Integration Study Steering Committee Meeting Presented to Montgomery County Department.
Pilot National Travel Survey 2009 Summary Findings Prepared by Mairead Griffin.
Client Name Here - In Title Master Slide 2007/2008 Household Travel Survey Presentation of Additional Findings by Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services.
Bolton Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 974 – GMATS Bolton Key Centre report Whereas report.
Oldham Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 997 – GMATS Oldham Key Centre report Whereas report.
Regional On-Board Bus Survey Proposal Presentation to the TPB Technical Committee Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services Director October 5, 2007.
PRTC Challenges, Opportunities, and Experience with a Regional Fare Collection System.
Equity Challenges for Community and Technical College Programs and Students 2014 D. Prince Policy Research Director State Board for Community and Technical.
Transit & Parking Benefits Presentation Department of Education Office of Management - Facilities Management Services – Management Services Division -Transportation.
1 Presented to the Transportation Planning Board October 15, 2008 Item 9 Metrobus Priority Corridor Network.
1 Transit Capacity Constraint Presented to: TPB Technical Committee April 1, 2005 Lora Byala Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Business.
1 Mountain Metropolitan Transit Sustainability Committee March 20, 2009 Presented By: Sherre Ritenour & Tim McKinney.
Serving a “Rainbow” Ridership – Designing and Providing High-Quality Public Transit for a Demographically Diverse Population Lyndon Henry COMTO Conference.
Presented to Time of Day Panel presented by Krishnan Viswanathan, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Jason Lemp, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Thomas Rossi, Cambridge.
2030 Transit-Oriented Development Scenario: Travel Model Results
TPB CLRP Aspirations Scenario 2012 CLRP and Version 2.3 Travel Forecasting Model Update Initial Results Ron Kirby Department of Transportation Planning.
Prepared by: May Metro Transit Train and Bus Rider Surveys COMPARATIVE RESULTS Bruce Howard Director of Marketing.
CityBus Update Martin Sennett General Manager Lafayette City Council January 5, 2006.
Client Name Here - In Title Master Slide 2007/2008 Household Travel Survey Presentation of Findings on Weekday Travel Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services.
The Regional Mobility and Accessibility Study Initial Results of CLRP/CLRP+ Analysis with Round 6.4 Growth Forecasts and Five Alternative Land Use Scenarios.
2009 COMMUNITY SURVEY Presentation of Final Results January 21, 2010.
Carbon Footprint of the U.S. Population: Causes and Spatial-Temporal Pattern Class Project ME/ENV 449, 2007 Grace D. W. Johnson Instructor: R. Husar VMT.
Transit Choices BaltimoreLink Ad-hoc Committee Meeting January 12, 2016.
How the MBTA effects us.. Student Fares Before Bus $0.60 Rapid Transit $0.85 Bus + Rapid Transit $0.85 After Bus $0.75 Rapid Transit $1.00 Bus + Rapid.
Manchester Regional Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 996 – GMATS Manchester Regional Key Centre.
Successful Commute Programs Critical components include: 1.An active and informed Employee Transportation Coordinator (you!) 2.Guaranteed ride home 3.Parking.
FARE STUDY RTD Board Study Session April 28,
FARE STUDY ECOPASS Board of Directors Study Session August 25, 2015.
An Up-to-Date Analysis of Future Workforce Needs in Transit
Rush Line Corridor: Connecting Manufactured Home Parks to Opportunity
Use Survey to Improve the DFX Transit Model
Districtwide Passenger Origin & Destination (O & D) Surveys 2015 Planning & Development Committee November 01, 2016.
Survey of Potential Overnight Service Passengers
Technical Committee Item # 9
Current conditions.
Geocoding of 2007 WMATA Rail Survey
Seattle Transportation Benefit District
Demographics, economic development, and the workforce
Presentation transcript:

2008 Regional Bus Survey Preliminary Results Presentation to the Access for All Advisory Committee Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services Director April 23, 2009

Expanded On-Board Survey Ridership Totals SystemWeekday Riders (Preliminary Factors) ART5,400 TheBus15,300 CUE3,600 DASH14,700 TransIT2,800 PRTC12,400 Fairfax Connector66,500 Ride-On98,000 Metrobus454,900 Total673,500

Bus Riders Jurisdiction of Residence System Percent Distribution DCSuburban Md N. VirginiaOutside Region ART5%4%90%1% TheBus11%88%1%--- CUE5% 88%2% DASH3% 94%1% TransIT---97%---3% PRTC---1%98%1% Connector3% 91%3% Ride-On5%93%1% Metrobus49%33%16%1% All38%43%18%1%

Jurisdiction of Residence Findings Except for Metrobus, most systems primarily served residents of a particular geographic sub- area of the region More than 10% of TheBus riders are DC residents

Access Mode to Bus WalkMetrorailBusAuto DAuto PBikeOther ART76%15%7%1%--- 1% TheBus49%21%10%15%3%---2% CUE65%26%6%1% ---1% DASH71%14%10%1%2%---1% TransIT70%1%25%1% ---1% PRTC49%7%12%22%8%---2% Connector49%25%14%5%4%---2% Ride-On54%19%20%2%3%---1% Metrobus59%17%18%2% ---1% All58%17%18%3%2%---1%

Mode of Access Findings Except for PTRC and TheBus, more than half the riders access their bus by walking to it The PRTC and TheBus systems have large percentages of riders who park-and-ride, at 22% and 15% respectively PRTC was the system with the greatest percentage of auto passenger drop-offs (8%) TransIT and PRTC have the lowest percentage of rail-to- bus transfers (1% & 7%); CUE had the highest percentage (26%)

Purpose of Trip Go to Work Job- Related Personal Business Shopping or Meal To School Soc/ Rec Other ART62%3%13%6%15%1%--- TheBus54%4%28%6%5%3%--- CUE57%2%14%3%17%5%2% DASH63%4%14%8%6%5%1% TransIT56%10%18%11%4%2%--- PRTC68%3%13%9%4%3%--- Connector58%NA Ride-On52%4%19%9% 6%1% Metrobus55%5%20%7% 5%--- All55%5%20%7%8%5%1%

Trip Purpose Findings Commuting to work accounts for one-half to two-thirds of the trips on each bus system TheBus was the system with the greatest percentage of its riders traveling for personal business reasons (28%) TransIT was the system with the greatest percentage of its riders making shopping trips or going to a restaurant (11%) A significant percentage of CUE and ART riders were traveling to school (17% for CUE and 15% for ART)

How Fare was Paid CashSmart Trip Weekly Pass Rail Transfer Bus Transfer Senior Discount Other ART45%36%8%2% 1%7% TheBus63%8%3% 6% 11% CUE39%31%2% 3%---24% DASH43%37%2% 4%---12% TransIT71%--- 3%4%5%18% PRTC34%57%--- 1%8% Connector48%41%--- 11% Ride-On34%26%15%2% 5%16% Metrobus34%42%11%2%3% 5% All35%38%11%2%3%4%7%

Fare Payment Findings SmarTrip was the predominant payment method used by PRTC (57%) and Metrobus (42%) Cash was the primary mode of fare payment for TransIT (71%) and TheBus (63%) riders A significant percentage of Ride-On (15%) and Metrobus (11%) riders paid their fare using a weekly pass Approximately 5% of TheBus, TransIT and Ride-On riders paid a discounted senior citizen/disabled rider fare.

Number of Transfers System Total Number of Bus and Rail Transfers No Transfers One Transfer Two Transfers Three or More Transfers ART38%45%13%4% TheBus31%47%16%6% CUE38%47%12%3% DASH40%44%13%3% TransIT34%52%9%5% PRTC58%29%7%6% Connector34%45%16%5% Ride-On31%48%16%6% Metrobus33%45%17%5% All33%45%17%5%

Findings on Number of Transfers Between 60% and 70% of the riders on each system reported making one or more transfers to reach their destination Only about 40% of PRTC riders reported transferring to another transit vehicle to complete their trip

Receive Transit Benefit from Employer? SystemYesNo ART32%68% TheBus13%87% CUE23%77% DASH35%65% TransIT5%95% PRTC42%58% ConnectorNA Ride-On21%79% Metrobus24%76% All24%76%

Findings on Transit Benefits Overall 24% of the surveyed bus riders reported receiving a transit benefit from their employer Approximately 42% of PRTC riders, 35% of DASH riders and 32% of ART riders said that they received a transit benefit Only 5% of TransIT riders and 13% of TheBus riders said they received a transit benefit from their employer

Number of Household Vehicles System Number of HH Vehicles No Vehicles One Vehicle Two Vehicles Three or More Vehicles ART43%42%13%3% TheBus49%26%21%4% CUE45%31%19%5% DASH37%43%17%3% TransIT52%31%10%7% PRTC26%30%28%17% Connector40%29%23%8% Ride-On43%31%19%6% Metrobus53%30%13%4% Total50%31%14%5%

Findings on Household Vehicle Availability Approximately 50% of the riders on the Metrobus, TransIT and TheBus systems are from households without autos or other vehicles PRTC Riders were twice as likely to live in households with 2 or more vehicles than bus riders on other systems and three times more likely to live households with 3 or more vehicles in than riders on other systems

Was a Vehicle Available for This Trip? SystemYesNo ART42%58% TheBus27%73% CUE33%67% DASH40%60% TransIT24%76% PRTC54%46% Connector37%63% Ride-On30%70% Metrobus28%72% All29%71%

Findings on “Choice” Bus Riders The PRTC ART and DASH systems had the greatest percentages of “choice” riders Choice riders are riders who had a vehicle available to them to make the trip they were making, but “chose” to make the trip by bus instead

Race/Ethnicity of Riders Asian Black/ African- American HispanicNative American WhiteMulti- Racial No Response ART4%34%27%---28%1%6% TheBus2%70%10%---10%1%7% CUE31%18%14%---31%2%3% DASH7%35%15%1%33%1%9% TransIT2%42%21%---31%4%1% PRTC4%36%14%1%38%1%6% Connector35% Ride-On9%45%16%---23%2%6% Metrobus4%59%10%1%19%2%6% Total5%56%11%1%20%2%6%

Race/Ethnicity Findings The majority of riders on TheBus and Metrobus systems identified their race/ethnicity as Black/African American By far, CUE had the greatest percentage of riders identifying themselves as Asian (31%) The ART and TransIT had high percentages of their riders identifying themselves as Hispanic, 27% on ART and 21% on TransIT TheBus had the lowest percentage of riders identifying themselves as white (10%)

Household Income <10K10-20K20-40K40-60K60-100K100K+ No Response ART22%10%15%10%15%14% TheBus16%8%24%11%17%7%17% CUE20%9%19%15%10%12%15% DASH16%8%20%13%16%14%13% TransIT31%9%32%11%5%3%8% PRTC14%6%13%9%18%28%12% Connector(43%<30K),( 29% 30-70K), (18% K),( 11% 125K+) Ride-On18%10%20%15%13%9%15% Metrobus19%11%23%14%12%9%12% Total19%10%22%14%13%9%13%

Household Income Findings Overall, 19% of the bus system riders surveyed reported annual household income of less than $10,000 and more than half of all riders reported household incomes of less than $40,000 Almost one-third of TransIT riders reported household incomes of less than $10,000 About one-quarter of PRTC riders reported household incomes in excess of $100,000

Questions on Survey Results and Findings?